CMPMO/606/2026 on 14 October 2026

[ 2026:HHC:46279] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 606 of 2026 Decided on: 14.10.2026. _______________________________________________________________

Duni Chand

…. Petitioner

Versus

Mukesh Kumar and Ors.

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

For the Respondnets : Notice not issued.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, being the plaintiff has come up before this Court, in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1] passed by Learned Senior Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Case No 454-2 of 2026, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code for bringing on record, the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ghumarwin and the order dated 12.03.2024, passed by

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Collector-cum-SDM, Ghumarwin under Section of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. In the Civil Suit No 337-1 of 2024/2013, Petitioner-Plaintiff has set up a case, for Declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act that the sale deed bearing Registration No. 124 of 2013, dated 19.02.2013 in respect of land measuring 0-5 bigas, i.e. 1/4th share comprised in Khasra No. 32, Khata/ Khatuni No 48/51, out of total land measuring 1-02 bigha, situated at village Salwahan, Pargna Sariun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (HP), executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, is wrong, illegal null and void with the further declaration that the Revenue Entries be corrected by showing the petitioner/plaintiff to be exclusive owner in possession over the land measuring 0-11 bigha i.e. ½ share out of total land measuring 0-02 bigha comprised in Khasra No.32, Khata-Khatuni No. 48/51 situated in the said Mohal by virtue of a family settlement. 2(i). In the Written Statement, besides other pleas, Respondent-Defendants No. 1 and 2 have opposing the claim of Petitioner-Plaintiff with the plea that no family settlement was arrived at between the parties and petitioner-plaintiff is having only ¼th share in the suit land and he has no right on the share of Defendant No.1, which was sold by virtue of the sale deed dated 19.02.2013 to the Defendant No 2. In this backdrop, prayer was made for dismissing the suit. 2(ii). Replication was filed by Petitioner-plaintiff.

2(iii). Issued were framed on 06.03.2018 and case for taken up for Plaintiff Evidence from 21.05.2018 to 11.09.2024. Matter was fixed for Defendant Evidence on 18.06.2025 but was adjourned for DW Evidence as last opportunity on 30.07.2025 and thereafter matter was fixed for arguments. APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14 (3) OF CPC:

3. An application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC was filed by Petitioner-plaintiff e C.P.C. on 26.08.2026, [Annexure P-2] seeking leave for tendering in evidence copy of Order dated 07.01.2021, passed by Assistant Collector First Grade, Ghumarwin and the copy of the

Order dated 12.03.2024, passed by Learned Collector- cum-SDM, Ghumarwin, as these documents came to the knowledge of Counsel while preparing arguments and these documents were relevant and necessary for the adjudication of the matter. 3(i). Respondent-Defendants filed the reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) on 08.09.2026 [Annexure P-7], objecting to the prayer made in the application, on the ground that instant application was filed just to prolong the proceedings and the documents which were sought to be tendered in evidence are not at all relevant for adjudication of the case and filing of the application at belated stage is only to prolong proceedings which are at arguments stage. IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARDED TRIAL COURT ON 10.09.2026 [ANNEXURE P-1]

4. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC on 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1], in following terms:- 1 to 3. …Not relevant.

4. Perusal of the record of main case file reflects that and thereafter, on 06.03.2018

issues were framed and case was present case has been instituted by the applicant on 11.07.2013 listed for plaintiff's evidence from 21.05.2018 to 11.09.2024 and the documents which the applicant intends to brought on record are copies of order dated 12.03.2024 and 07.01.2021. Perusal of the documents reflects that same were pertaining to year 2021 and 2024 and applicant has an opportunity to file these documents at the time of his evidence as these documents were within the knowledge of the applicant and same has not been produced before the court at the time of evidence and at this stage, when the case is listed for arguments, then the present application has been filed. It appears that the applicant intends to linger on the proceedings of the present case which is more than years old. Therefore, the court does not find any substance in the present application and no reason to brought on record the aforementioned documents. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2026 [ANNEXURE P-1]

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner-plaintiff assailed the Impugned Order dated 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1] on the ground that the documents which are sought to be placed on record are orders passed by the quasi-judicial authorities on 07.02.2021 and 12.03.2024 [Annexure P 4 and P-3] at the instance of Shri Tilak Raj, {predecessor of respondent-defendant no 1} and these documents are relevant-necessary for a fair and accepting these documents shall not cause any prejudice to the Respondnets-defendants and therefore, the Impugned Order may be set-aside.

6. Heard, Mr Rajiv Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. ANALYSIS OF IMPUGNED ORDER:

7. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that Impugned Order dated 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1], passed by Learned Trial Court, dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity, or illegality, for the reasons, firstly, the documents which are sought to be tendered in evidence by the petitioner-plaintiff, by way of an application under Order VII and Rule 14 (3) are copies of the orders dated 07.01.2021 passed by Learned

Assistant Collector First Grade, Ghumarwin, and order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Learned Collector-cum- SDM, Ghumarwin were validly disallowed by Learned Trial Court in view of the reasons spelt out in the Impugned Order; and secondly, the plea that omission to tender these documents earlier was bonafide is totally misconceived and the said plea is an after- thought in view of the fact that Civil Suit was listed for Plaintiff Evidence from 21.05.2018 to 11.09.2024 and Petitioner-plaintiff had knowledge of these documents and had ample opportunity to tender them in Plaintiff Evidence during this period ; and thirdly, even the failure on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner herein to tender these documents at an appropriate stage, cannot form basis to grant premium to the plaintiff for his inaction, negligence, lethargy and conduct; and fourthly, contention of Learned Counsel that the documents which were sought to be tendered in evidence, were relevant for adjudication of pending Civil Suit, being the copy of orders passed in partition proceedings on 07.01.2021 passed by Learned Assistant Collector First Grade and order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Learned Collector-cum-

SDM Ghumarwin, is misconceived, for the reason that, aforesaid documents are not relevant for adjudicating the pending Civil Suit in any manner; and fifthly, the factum that these documents are not relevant is borne out from the fact that Shri Tilak Raj, [who is predecessor of Defendant No 1 Mukesh and another LRs Sushma] filed an application for partition of land under Section of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, measuring 31-03 Bighas situated in Khasra No 22, 28, 30, 32, 40, 62, 97, 98 and 99 situated in Village Salwan Pargana Suriun, Tehsil Ghumarwin by instituting a Case No 38-09 of 2008, before Learned Assistant Collector First Grade Ghumarwin and during the pendency of partition proceedings, the petitioner-plaintiff filed objections under Section of said Act that petitioner-plaintiff had four Civil Suits involving question of title and till the civil suits were decided the partition shall not proceed and based on these objections, the partition application filed by Tilak Raj-predecessor of Respondent-Defendant No 1 was dismissed on 07.01.2021 [Annexure P-4] and aforesaid Shri Tilak Raj, predecessor of the Respondent

-Defendant assailed this order under Section 14 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act in Case No 2/92 of 2022 and appeal was partly allowed on 12.03.2024 [Annexure P-3] by remanding back the matter to Learned Assistant Collector First Grade to pass speaking orders, after hearing the parties to submit the case to Learned Civil Court for determination of title and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities which are sought to be placed on record “speak in one voice that partition shall wait till question of title is decided by the Trial Court/Civil Court”, therefore, the Impugned Order dated 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1] passed Learned Trial Court is certainly a step towards expeditions disposal of the Civil Suit, and to curb the delaying tactics to prolong the adjudication of the main suit at the behest of plaintiff herein; and sixthly, the Impugned Order is legal and valid as petitioner-Plaintiff cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by raising a plea in partition proceedings [under Section 129 of HPLR Act] partition proceedings may be deferred/closed till the title dispute is decided by Civil Court but on the other hand the action of petitioner-plaintiff in filing an application under Order VII R 14 (3), just to delay the adjudication of the main suit involving question of title on the suit property; and, seventhly, besides the above, once orders passed on 07.01.2021 by Assistant Collector First Grade and order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Collector-cum-SDM, neither confer conclusive proof of any legal character nor do these orders declare any such person to be entitled or accrued to any such legal character nor do these orders take away or cease any person to any legal character and nor do these orders declare any person {either the plaintiff or the defendant] of any property or right in such property absolutely, to which any other person was entitled to at the time of passing of these orders, therefore, in view of Section 35 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam {Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act} these documents being not relevant, were validly negated by Learned Trial Court in terms of the Impugned Order on 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1} ; and eighthly, the application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was validly dismissed by Learned Trial Court, when, documents sought to be tendered in evidence do not have any direct or indirect bearing with the issues so framed, in view of the principle outlined by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jeet Lal vs Kamaljeet Singh & Others, 2016 (1) HLR 06 [Para 7]; and ninthly, even the unexplained delay and inadequate explanation and lack of due diligence in the instant case are factors not warranting favourable exercise of jurisdiction in Article 227 proceedings, in view of the mandate of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Piar Chand vs Deepika, 2017 (1) HLR 23 [Para 12] ; and tenthly, the provision of Order VII and Rule 14 (3) cannot be permitted to invoked so as to throttle the justice, and even the mistake of learned Counsel cannot be a ground, when, the litigant-plaintiff was supposed to be vigilant of his rights and remedy and when, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he was a rustic and illiterate person and was totally uneducated, and in peculiar facts. Moreover, plaintiff had filed total of four suits before the same Trial Court [at page 24 of paper book] and similar plea was negated by another Coordinate Bench of this

Court in Mukhtiar Singh vs Gyan Singh & Ors, 2025 SCC Online 3478 [Para 5] ; and eleventhly, even application under order VII Rule 14 (3) is not to be granted in a casual manner but the pre-requisites for the exercise of judicial discretion is “relevancy of documents and prejudice to be caused, in case, plaintiff is not allowed to tender such documents in pending suit” and once both these material aspects are absent in instant case, as discussed above, and the findings recorded in the Impugned Order dated 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1], passed by Learned Trial Court are justified and are supported by facts of instant case ; therefore, the Impugned Order does not warrant any interference and the same is upheld. SCOPE OF INTERERFERECE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

8. Besides the above, the scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory jurisdiction, and the High Court can neither act as nor reappreciate, reweigh evidence or facts, upon which an Impugned Order was passed. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked/exercised, to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when, the final findings in the order which is sought to be questioned is justified or can be supported. The supervisory jurisdiction is in the nature of a correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principles of law and justice or there is no evidence at all or the findings are perverse that no reasonable man would possibly come to a conclusion, which that Court or a Tribunal had come to and to ensure that an Order by Learned Trial Court does not result into miscarriage of justice to a party. It is only an error apparent on the face of record or perversity in the findings or findings unsupported by evidence which warrant interference. A reasoned decision of Trial Court on elaborate consideration of relevant facts cannot be a ground for interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8(i). While outlining the scope of proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Estralla Rubber vs Dass

Estate (P) Ltd, (2001) 8 SCC 97, in the following terms:

6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice re- mains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”

8(ii). While dealing with a similar scenario, the Honble Supreme Court has held in Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181 in the following terms:-

15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising super- visory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for

that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.

8(iii). Reiterating the scope of interference in the proceedings under Article of the Constitution of India, the Honble Supreme Court has held in the case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd and another vs B Gurrappa Naidu and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 745, in the following terms:

35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows:

a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assump- tion of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or

(b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.

b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.

c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.

CONCLUSION:

9. Based on the discussion made hereinabove, in the light of the principles mandated by the Honble Supreme Court and by this Court as referred to above and in facts of instant case, this Court sees no reason to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, as Impugned Order dated 10.09.2026 [Annexure P-1] passed by the Learned Trial Court, i.e. Senior Civil Judge Ghumarwin, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff herein, under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or illegality; and the conclusion arrived at, in peculiar fact-situation of instant case, is the possible conclusion, which does not suffer from abuse of jurisdiction or dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice; and therefore, the Impugned Order is upheld.

DIRECTIONS:

10. In view of the above discussion and for reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed.

11. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending applications if any, shall accordingly, stand dis- posed of.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge

October 14, 2026 (Anita)